Sirs, The report by the cross-party group of four Privy Counsellors on the use of intercept evidence in court (Feb 6) would appear simply to advocate bringing the UK in line with the system that has been used for years in jurisdictions such as the US. There, such evidence is powerful and uniquely effective in the fight against terrorism, drugs, white collar and organised crime.
The real question then is how can this information be gathered legally and effectively and used to secure convictions and stop crime? In the US, wiretap evidence is obtained only after careful judicial scrutiny. Judges grant intercept approval only if the Government makes a case that there is “probable cause” to conduct the intercept and agrees to adhere to strict standards, including ceasing to intercept any communication that is irrelevant to the charges that are under investigation, otherwise the evidence may be thrown out of court.
It is always in the Government’s power to decide not to use the evidence it has obtained in court if sensitive “sources and methods” would be revealed. Disclosure of sensitive information is controlled through the involvement of an informed judiciary that can determine whether lives or operations would be compromised if intercepted evidence were shared in the context of litigation. Thus, simply adopting a system that may allow use of intercept evidence does not necessarily equate with a wholesale loss of control of that information by the Government.
Advertisement
Wiretap evidence gives the Government a unique window into the thoughts and plans of conspirators. Particularly where terrorists are involved, and their passions for their cause may make co-operation with the Government unlikely, intercept evidence may be critically important.
I urge the UK to embrace this tool, which others in law enforcement and the intelligence services have employed for years to secure convictions and put would-be terrorists and others behind bars.
Advertisement
Lisa Kate Osofsky
Former Deputy General Counsel, FBI
Sir, Dean Godson’s claim that “Mr Khan remains the most Islamist-friendly of MPs” (comment, Feb 4) does not stand up to scrutiny. In a Fabian lecture in July 2006, Sadiq Khan stated: “Let me be quite clear. Hizb-ut-Tahrir quite deliberately have the same effect on race relations as their mirror image, the BNP. They encourage hatred and their preaching is used by the BNP to foster fear of Islam.”
Advertisement
Khan has consistently advocated integration and an inclusive Britishness, publicly challenging those from whichever community who undermine that or promote segregation.
Sunder Katwala
General Secretary, Fabian Society